Recent Court Ruling Makes It ‘Open Season’ On Adult Children In PABy Linda Anderson, Esq.Guest Contributor In 2005, Pennsylvania took a very unusual step in recodifying the filial support law in Pennsylvania under legislation referred to as Act 43. Under Act 43, adult children may be held liable to support their indigent parents. Until the passage of this unusual statute, it was thought that Pennsylvania, like many states, had abandoned the use of filial support laws to hold adult children liable for parents’ debts. However, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision, HCR vs. Pittas (Pa. Super. Ct., No. 536 EDA 2011, May 7, 2012) paints a chilling picture of the potential scope of authority for adult children under Act 43, leaving many to wonder if it isn’t “Open Season on Adult Children in Pennsylvania.” In the Pittas decision, an adult son was held liable for his mother’s $93,000 nursing home bill under Act 43. John Pittas’ mother entered a nursing home for rehabilitation following a car crash. She later left the nursing home and moved to Greece, and a large portion of her bills went unpaid. Mr. Pittas’ mother filed an application for Medicaid, which is still pending. But, notwithstanding the pending Medicaid application, the nursing home sued Mr. Pittas for nearly $93,000 under Act 43, which requires a child to provide support for an indigent parent. The trial court, and then the Pennsylvania Superior Court, concluded that Mr. Pittas, as an adult child, should be held liable for the entire bill, notwithstanding the fact that Medicaid may ultimately be the proper source of payment for the bill or that there were other adult children who may also have some part of the financial burden. This Act 43 debacle may sound familiar to many in the Philadelphia area who recall The Philadelphia Inquirer article published in July 12, 2009, written by Monica Yant Kinney, entitled “If Mom Can’t Pay, Adult Children Must” which told of a similar Act 43 saga. Now, after the Pittas decision, it is absolutely vital that parents who may be facing long-term care expenses at home or in a facility obtain advice on how to properly manage those costs. It is important to note in the Pittas case (and many other Act 43 cases), the children who are being sued are not children who have “stolen” money. Rather, many of these cases target adult children who are trying to do the right thing and remain involved in a parent’s care. In light of this decision, and now the many other cases expected to come from this decision, many seniors and their families may find themselves writing to their state legislators asking why Act 43 was passed in the first place. Good question, since there has always been a body of law that could be used by parents to chase down errant adult children. However, in Pennsylvania there is now a very scary law and this recent decision makes it clear that a parent’s creditors can chase down any one of their responsible, involved, adult children. By the way, Act 43 also provides that parents may also be held liable for indigent children. Katherine C. Pearson, Law Professor at Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law said it best: “It is one thing to say that family members have mutual obligations to love and support one another in hard times. That idea is at the core of what it means to be a family. It is quite another thing for Pennsylvania to decide that it will be the ‘leader’ in using the legal system to mandate financial support among family members and to permit third-party creditors to be the plaintiffs. In this case, the Superior Court decision ruled that the son was liable for close to $95,000 in his mother’s prior care expenses, and the court says this ruling is based on the ‘plain language’ of the statute in question. That same ‘plain language’ ruling appears to apply to parents’ responsibility for support of adult children who are unable to be self-supporting. A ‘plain language’ interpretation of the statute means there is no defense for the parent of a lazy child, just as there is no defense for the adult child of an estranged parent. This statute goes both directions. Pennsylvania’s filial support law - as interpreted by the Superior Court on May 7, 2012, in the Pittas case - is changing the game on financial support obligations.” *Linda M. Anderson, J.D., LL.M., CELA, practices in the specialized areas of Elder Law, Special Needs Planning, General Estate Planning Estate, and Trust Administration and Veterans Benefits. Linda is also accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist in the preparation of claims for Aid & Attendance. Further information about Linda and her law firm can be found at www.AndersonElderLaw.com, or by calling 610-566-4700.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.